Jonathan, hello. On 2011 Oct 21, at 14:46, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> A direct URI always names an IR (in fact a particular one: the one at > that URI), but an indirect one can name either an NIR or an IR (as in > the http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/09/referential-use.html, and as > deployed at http://dx.doi.org/ ). HR14a says (in effect) all > retrieval-enabled hashless URIs are direct, but other rules (like Ian > Davis's) might say other things; the terms are useful independent of > the architecture. > > There might be situations in which 'NIR' is a useful category, but I > don't know of any. I can see that distinction, and the value in it. I still think that 'NIR' is a useful category -- in a way it's the simpler category of the two: you cannot download a NIR, no matter how many indirections you follow, whereas if you start following indirect links, you might end up at a direct link. Or: an NIR is one of the 'things' that's being talked about in the 'internet of things'. > If you say things like "303 implies NIR" (which is > not justified by httpRange-14 or anything else), I don't think anyone's so confused as to say "303 implies NIR". A lot of things would probably be simpler, though, if there were a 20x or 30x status code which did mean "this names an NIR, and the content is just commentary on, or depictions of, that thing" (that's not a suggestion, by the way!) All the best, Norman -- Norman Gray : http://nxg.me.uk SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK
